Sundarshan Marketing And Etc. vs Chief Commercial Manager, ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 29 Bom

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.

1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the action of the respondents in not accepting the tender of the petitioners for supply of various kinds of ice-creams for passengers travelling in the trains of Western Railway.

2. At the outset it must be noted that by an order dated 10th December, 2003, this court after perusing the affidavits filed on behalf of parties granted prayer of the petitioner to implead M/s. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. as party respondent to this petition. Today, when the matter was placed before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought further time to carry out the amendments. It is worthwhile noting that the order at the request of learned counsel for petitioner to implead the successful bidder was passed as early as on 10th December, 2003. A period of four weeks has elapsed and yet the amendment has not been carried out. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the petition without the successful bidder being before us.

3. Apart from the fact that no relief can be granted when a necessary party has not been impleaded, we find that the decision to award the contract after accepting the tender of M/s. Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. is reached by the authorities after evaluation of the bids and it being a decision taken by a tender committee consisting of high ranking officers of the Western Railway in the interest of passengers, we see no reason to interfere with the said decision in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The affidavit discloses the relevant conditions and the fact of application of mind by the Committee to the materials placed before it. It also notes the fact that the letter of acceptance in favour of the successful bidder has been issued on 17th November, 2003 and the supply has been directed to be commenced by the communications which were issued in pursuance of the letter of acceptance. It is pointed to us that the contract work was of supply of ice-cream in prestigious trains of western railway and in the interest of maintaining the quality of the product, the decision has been reached by the authorities. For all these reasons we find that this is not a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions therefore stand dismissed.